Andrew Clyde

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, my amendment to the FY24 Defense appropriations bill would simply prohibit the Department of Defense from using funds to administer, implement, or enforce the proposed action by the Department of the Army regarding the removal of the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Following 4 brutal years of the American Civil War, our Nation's great leaders, President Abraham Lincoln and future President Union General Ulysses S. Grant, took great measures to ensure that our Nation reconciled and unified after the conflict that turned fellow countryman against fellow countryman. These unifying actions included pardons for Confederate leaders that waged war as well as the restoration of confiscated property. What these great American leaders understood is that a nation divided against itself cannot stand. Then, in 1898, following the Spanish-American War, where Union and Confederate veterans fought side by side under one flag, the American flag, President McKinley declared in the heart of the South, in Atlanta, Georgia, the capital of my home State, that the U.S. Government would commit to sharing the burden of honoring and properly burying the Confederate dead, stating: ``Sectional feeling no longer holds back the love we feel for each other. The old flag waves over us in peace with new glories.'' In 1900, Congress authorized Confederate remains to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery. In 1906, President McKinley allowed for the construction of a new monument honoring our country's new shared reconciliation from its troubled divisions. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, unveiled this new memorial to national unity, which was designed by a Jewish-American sculptor. The memorial is topped with a woman crowned by an olive wreath to symbolize peace. Beginning with the unveiling of the statue and now every year since, it is the tradition of the President of the United States to send a wreath to the memorial, honoring the dead buried in a circle around the monument. This tradition, which shows tremendous national unity, has been carried on regardless of party or politics of the sitting President. In fact, even President Obama understood the Reconciliation Monument in the context for which it stood, which was unity, not division, when he continued the Presidential tradition of sending a wreath to the monument. Despite the bipartisan support for this monument, the renaming commission established by the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act overstepped its legislative authority and recommended that the Department of the Army remove the memorial from Arlington National Cemetery. The renaming commission's authority given to them by Congress empowers them to recommend the removal of ``names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America.'' Yet, as described previously, the Reconciliation Monument does not honor nor commemorate the Confederacy. It commemorates reconciliation and national unity. Furthermore, the renaming commission's authority explicitly prohibits the desecration of gravesites. There are hundreds of gravestones encircling the monument, and I do not know how in the world these graves will remain untouched if the Department of the Army proceeds with its proposal to remove the monument. Former Virginia Democrat Senator Jim Webb, a decorated Marine Corps officer who served multiple combat tours in Vietnam and later became the Secretary of the Navy, recently published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal concerning the Reconciliation Monument at Arlington Cemetery. Senator Webb describes his own journey of reconciliation following his combat tours in Vietnam. He explains how he hosted a delegation of Vietnamese officials in Washington to encourage them to be peaceful toward former South Vietnamese veterans, who were labeled as traitors after the war and had been treated as such. Senator Webb described how to make his point to the delegation. He brought them to the Reconciliation Monument in Arlington and pointed across the Potomac toward the Lincoln Memorial to show that old wounds can be healed. Senator Webb concludes with this: If the monument is taken apart and removed, ``it would send a different message, one of a deteriorating society willing to erase the generosity of its past, in favor of bitterness and misunderstanding.'' Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a stand against such a divisive and history-erasing action and support my amendment to defund the effort to remove the Reconciliation Monument from the Arlington National Cemetery. My amendment prevents this tyrannical encroachment by legislative authority, ignorance of congressional intent, and disregard of national unity. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, it would be an absolute disgrace if this Reconciliation Monument to our Nation's national unity is removed from Arlington National Cemetery and the graves that encircle it are desecrated. Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, my amendment prevents any funds in this year's Defense appropriations bill from being spent on section 370 of the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, providing a commonsense solution to block unnecessary and frivolous efforts to rename military bases across the country. As a Navy combat veteran, an area of great concern for me is the inessential renaming of military bases and facilities as this issue is not a matter of national security nor an improvement of our military's combat readiness. The Department of Defense's focus should remain on bolstering our defense capabilities and ensuring that we maintain the most lethal fighting force in the world. Instead, the Department of Defense is continuing to pursue plans to rename military bases, two of which, Fort Benning and Fort Gordon, are in my home State of Georgia. The Department of Defense's renaming efforts are expected to cost taxpayers over $62 million and would have a detrimental economic impact in the surrounding communities. Take Fort Gordon, for example, where local small business owners who take great pride in our Nation's military have named their establishments or attractions after the local Army base. If the name of the base is changed, then local entrepreneurs will be forced to rename and rebrand businesses, replacing merchandise and creating completely new marketing strategies, which is not cheap. In fact, in many cases, you may see that rebranding of businesses actually will cause the businesses to fail. In rural communities like those in Georgia, this economic burden would be catastrophic, and I know communities across the country will be confronted with the same issues if we allow the Department of Defense to continue this reckless plan. I was disappointed that earlier this year, when I offered a similar amendment to the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, these amendments were not even considered or debated on the House floor. However, we have a second opportunity right now as we look to fund the Department of Defense. We must carefully examine how taxpayer dollars are being used to fund the Department of Defense and its policies, and I adamantly believe that Americans' hard-earned tax dollars should not be wasted on renaming military bases but should be focused on making our military the most lethal in the world. Due to President Biden's failed leadership and Big Government socialist agenda, our Nation is facing an ongoing economic crisis. Excessive Washington spending has not only ballooned our national debt, which just surpassed $33 trillion last week, but has also inflated the prices of basic goods and services for our constituents, while running an annual deficit of almost $2 trillion. It is simply unacceptable to spend millions of dollars of borrowed money to rename military bases and facilities only to undoubtedly burden hardworking Americans and small business owners already struggling in Joe Biden's disastrous economy. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, renaming does nothing to make our military more combat-ready. In fact, it is a waste of taxpayer funds. Our military defense funding should be used to make our troops the most lethal in the entire world, the most feared in the entire world. It should be spent on training, not renaming, which does absolutely nothing but divert resources from the critical mission of our military. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that agencies in this town respect is funding. Indeed, reduced funding is the only way that we will bring them back to their core mission. This agency has had a 44 percent increase in funding, and yet, they have taken that money, and what they have done to our First Amendment civil liberties, to our rights, is they have spied upon us. In the cybersecurity world, they have taken our information and they have misused it. I think CISA needs a haircut, and I think this haircut will get their attention. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that today we are considering my Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 44, co-led with Congressman Richard Hudson, which would strike down the ATF's unconstitutional pistol stabilizing brace rule. Back in January, the ATF finalized this unlawful measure pertaining to firearms with stabilizing braces. Under the ATF's new rule, any pistol braced firearm would be considered an unregistered short- barreled rifle, subjecting these firearms to the draconian regulations of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The ATF informed law-abiding gun owners possessing pistols housing these stabilizing braces that they would have only 120 days to register these firearms or risk harsh NFA violations, including hefty fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. This 120-day amnesty registration window recently ended at midnight on May 31. We all know the end result of gun registration. It will inevitably lead to gun confiscation. For the stabilizer brace owners who do not wish to register their firearms, the ATF provides a few very heavyhanded alternatives. Gun owners can turn in, destroy, convert, or dismantle their pistol braced firearms. That means, basically, that ATF says you can't have it anymore. Again, if law-abiding owners refuse to comply with these ridiculous regulations, they face severe punishment. They face 10 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine for simply attaching a piece of plastic to their firearm. They then become a felon for life. The regulatory saga surrounding the pistol brace is enough to make even the most seasoned lawmaker's head spin. It is so ridiculously Big Government that no American can be expected to keep up with this irrational rulemaking. Back in 2012, under the Obama administration, pistol braces were determined to be legal and fully unrestricted. This decision was then reversed 3 years later in 2015, claiming stabilizing braces were illegal to shoulder, turning pistol braced firearms into unregistered short-barreled rifles. This changed again in 2017 when stabilizing braces were once more determined to be legal to shoulder as long as they were designed as a pistol brace. Now here we are in 2023, as the ATF is yet again vilifying pistol stabilizing braces and turning their owners into felons. Americans, including disabled veterans, are at risk of losing their right to keep and bear arms because of this ATF rule that many Americans likely do not even know exists. Mr. Speaker, I have heard many fear-inducing lies from my Democrat colleagues that these braces make firearms more dangerous and deadly. That is simply not true. Stabilizing braces were originally designed to help service-disabled veterans to not just enjoy the sport of shooting but to assist these wounded heroes in practicing their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The brace attaches to the rear of a firearm in order to anchor the gun to the shooter's arm, allowing them to shoot one-handed. That is exactly what you are supposed to be able to do with a pistol, shoot one-handed. That is the definition. Millions of veterans, including service-disabled veterans, rely on these braces every day to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms and right to self-defense. Yet, the Biden ATF rule criminalizes these beneficial stabilizing braces--again, turning millions of these law- abiding gun owners into criminals overnight. It is no secret that with this measure, and many other forms of backdoor gun control, the left's ultimate goal is an unarmed America. That is what this is all about, slowly chipping away at Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Not on my watch. This rule doesn't just infringe upon Americans' Second Amendment liberties. It represents a dangerous government overreach by the Biden administration. Congress maintains sole legislative authority, not government agencies and not the executive branch. Congress writes laws, not unelected, anti-gun bureaucrats at the ATF. This is nothing more than governing by executive fiat to advance the left's desire to disarm our Nation and destroy Americans' Second Amendment rights. Today, the people's House can take a stand against this unlawful overreach. I am proud to lead the fight against this unconstitutional pistol brace rule with this critical legislation, H.J. Res. 44. I am proud to have my friend, Congressman Hudson, join me in co-leading this vital effort, as well as over 180 original House Republican cosponsors. The House must act now to save law-abiding gun owners from being unwittingly criminalized by the ATF. We must act now to defend service- disabled veterans' and all Americans' Second Amendment freedoms. We must act now to stop the Biden administration's executive overreach and tyranny in its tracks. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support H.J. Res. 44. If they fail to do so, I hope they are prepared to go home and explain to their constituents that they support the ATF's unconstitutional rule to strip service-disabled veterans of their Second Amendment rights.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I hope they are prepared to go home and explain why they refused to take a stand against this brazen government overreach. Mr. Speaker, I trust that they will instead choose to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 44. I implore my colleagues to join me because, by passing this legislation, we will send a resounding message to both the judicial system and the Nation that we firmly reject the ATF's unconstitutional rule and executive overreach, that we unapologetically defend service-disabled veterans' unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and that we will never back down in the fight to protect all Americans' Second Amendment liberties.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, during National Police Week, we honor our men and women in blue for their courage, dedication, and commitment to preserving law and order in our communities. We also remember the fallen, those who made the ultimate selfless sacrifice in the line of duty. On this National Police Week, Congress has the unique opportunity to not just say we back the blue but to actually take a stand against a misguided law that severely hinders the ability of police officers in this very city from protecting and serving the American people. The D.C. City Council's so-called police reform bill--the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act-- creates very serious undue burdens on the Metropolitan Police Department. Amidst the raging crime crisis terrorizing the streets here in our Nation's Capital, this law, which for 2 years has been in effect under emergency legislative powers, puts criminals first and MPD officers last. MPD officers overwhelmingly oppose the D.C. Council's anti-police law, and they are making it known with their feet. Since this legislation has been in place, the MPD has lost more than 1,100 officers and currently operates at a 500-officer deficit. As officers are leaving the force in droves, faster than they can be replaced, the Metropolitan Police Department has drastically shrunk to a historic half-century low. Due to my commitment to our Constitution and passion for restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital, I introduced a resolution, H.J. Res. 42, to repeal the D.C. Council's harmful law. Last month this body passed my commonsense measure by a bipartisan vote garnering the support of 14 House Democrats. By passing my resolution, the House firmly rejected the council's anti-police law, reaffirming our support of heroic law enforcement officers and underscored the importance of protecting Americans' safety here in Washington. It is now up to the Senate to act before it is too late. Thankfully, today Senators will vote on H.J. Res. 42 as Senator J.D. Vance is leading the fight to repeal the D.C. Council's anti-police law. During this vote Senators will face a very simple question: On National Police Week do they stand with the officers of the Metropolitan Police Department, or do they embolden violent criminals who continue to torment and attack Americans in our Nation's Capital? Earlier this year when Congress was confronted with a similar question as we considered my previous D.C.-related resolution, H.J. Res. 26, to block the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime Revised Criminal Code Act, we had 31 Democrats in both the House and the Senate join our effort to strike down this radical law that would eliminate minimum sentences and reduce maximum penalties for numerous violent criminal offenses. I now call on these same 31 Senate Democrats to join our fight, yet again, by passing H.J. Res. 42 because failure to do so will only drive out more Metropolitan Police Department officers and deter officers from joining the force, meaning Washington will have fewer police officers on the streets to combat the dangerous crime crisis plaguing our Nation's Capital. While D.C.'s local leadership shamelessly refuses to admit there is a crime crisis in Washington, the data reveals that the crime crisis is not only real, but that it is getting worse. Compared to last year, violent crime is up 13 percent as the city has already faced more than 80 homicides in just the first 4\1/2\ months of 2023. Property crime has increased by a whopping 30 percent, and total crime overall is up 27 percent. Clearly, the crime crisis in our Nation's Capital is dire, which is why residents, small businesses, visitors, and the brave officers of the Metropolitan Police Department are counting on Congress to act. They are depending on us to use our authority outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution to prevent our Nation's Capital from becoming the next New York City, Chicago, or San Francisco. They are calling on us to support MPD officers, help them restore law and order, and improve public safety in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to put people over politics. Join our effort to repeal the D.C. Council's antipolice law and send this commonsense bill, H.J. Res. 42, to the President's desk. I implore President Biden to abandon his senseless veto threat so we can take another crucial step in bolstering the ranks of the Metropolitan Police Department and boosting public safety in D.C. We shoulder the responsibility and the authority to make our Nation's Capital a safer place for all Americans, and we cannot take this duty lightly. It is time for the Senate to take a stand in not only protecting Americans in Washington but in protecting MPD officers who risk their lives to defend law and order in D.C. On this National Police Week, fulfilling our constitutional duty to strike down a law that will continue to severely damage the Metropolitan Police Department is the least we can do to show that we do, in fact, always back the blue.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 2023 Georgia High School Association 4A State Champions, the Johnson Knights Boys Soccer Team. Last week, the Knights became back-to-back State champions, defeating the Westminster Wildcats, boasting a final score of 4-2. Combined with their 5A championship titles from last year and 2018, this latest victory marks the Knights' third title in the last five completed seasons. Fueled by adrenaline, filled with talent, and led by Coach Frank Zamora, these gifted young men continue to dominate the competition and make the 9th District proud. Congratulations, Johnson High School Boys Soccer Team, on an exciting win and becoming back-to-back Georgia State champions.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, 3 weeks ago, this body passed my commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 42, to repeal the D.C. City Council's severely misguided anti-police law. We did so with bipartisan support, sending a clear message that the people's House remains resolute in our commitment to both back the men and women in blue of the Metropolitan Police Department and to restore public safety in our Nation's Capital City. We are only 131 days into 2023, and Washington, D.C., has recorded 77 homicides, 62 incidents of sexual abuse, nearly 500 cases of assault with a dangerous weapon, more than 900 robberies, over 2,400 incidents of motor vehicle theft, and almost 4,200 reported thefts. Clearly, there is a catastrophic crime crisis here in Washington, D.C., yet D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson insists that there is ``not a crime crisis in Washington, D.C.'' Meanwhile, it appears that the D.C. Attorney General is more concerned with the safety risks of gas stoves than the safety of citizens, and Mayor Bowser remains missing in action as criminals terrorize the city. In an unconvincing attempt to showcase leadership, she held a public safety summit this week to discuss the issue of crime. However, the Mayor knows what must be done. She simply refuses to do it. This isn't complicated. D.C.'s local government must prosecute criminals and support Metropolitan Police Department officers. Due to D.C.'s failed local leadership, it is now up to Congress to save our Nation's Capital from itself. We have both the authority and the responsibility to do so, but we must act swiftly. Residents, small businesses, visitors, and the heroic officers of the Metropolitan Police Department are counting on us to act. Failure to do so will only embolden the dangerous, violent, and deranged criminals taking over Washington's streets. So as I did this morning at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, I call on the Senate to pass H.J. Res. 42 and to put people over politics by joining our effort to improve public safety in our Nation's Capital City. I urge President Biden to follow suit, just as he did in our fight to nullify the Council's soft-on-crime Revised Criminal Code Act. We must use our authority outlined in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States Constitution to not only protect Americans in Washington but to protect MPD officers risking their lives to defend law and order in D.C. Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking, and we don't have a minute to waste. The Senate needs to get this done and pass H.J. Res. 42 for the American people. Defending Americans' Second Amendment Freedoms

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the defense of Americans' Second Amendment freedoms. In January, the ATF finalized its unconstitutional rule pertaining to firearms with stabilizing braces. Under the ATF's new rule, any pistol- braced firearm would be considered an unregistered short-barreled rifle, subjecting these firearms to draconian regulations under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The ATF informed law-abiding gun owners possessing pistols housing these braces that they will have only 120 days to register these firearms or risk harsh NFA violations, including hefty fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in jail. This 120-day amnesty window ends later this month on May 31. Now, keep in mind, this rule doesn't just violate Americans' Second Amendment liberties. It also subverts Congress' sole legislative authority because Congress makes laws, not unelected anti-gun bureaucrats at the ATF. Yet, with the snap of ATF Director Dettelbach's finger--and nonexistent authority--millions of law-abiding gun owners, including many disabled veterans, will become criminals, felons, overnight if they refuse to register, turn in, destroy, or dismantle their pistol- braced firearms. For months I have promised gun owners that I would relentlessly fight the ATF's unconstitutional pistol brace rule on their behalf, and I meant it. Later this month, this body will pass my Congressional Review Act joint resolution, H.J. Res. 44, to prevent the Biden administration's tyrannical measure from taking effect. We are not giving 1 inch in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms--not 1 inch, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Comer for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that today we are considering my commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 42, which would block the implementation of the D.C. Council's so-called Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. H.J. Res. 42 is essential to both increase public safety and combat rising crime in our Nation's Capital City. For far too long, Washington, D.C., which is supposed to represent a beacon of freedom, patriotism, and prosperity for all America, has been overrun by violent criminals. As millions of people visit D.C. every year, it is imperative that our Nation's Capital is safe for all residents and visitors. Unfortunately, this simply is not the case. While many local Democrat officials continue to bury their heads in the sand, such as D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who insists there is ``not a crime crisis in Washington, D.C.,'' the data reveals the inescapable reality of an out-of-control crime wave taking over our city. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, so far this year, there have already been more than 60 homicides, nearly 50 cases of sexual abuse, 2,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft, over 750 robberies, 300 burglaries, and more than 2,200 cases of theft from auto. The list goes on and on. In fact, crime overall is up 25 percent from last year. These dangers are widely known across the District, but especially here on Capitol Hill. In the last few months, both a congressional reporter and a Member of Congress had the wheels stolen off of their cars. One of Senator Rand Paul's staffers was horrifically stabbed in broad daylight. A Member of this body, Congresswoman Angie Craig, was violently assaulted in an elevator in her apartment building. Crime is clearly out of control in our Nation's Capital. Who is charged with protecting the people and streets of Washington? The Metropolitan Police Department. Instead of providing MPD officers with the resources, support, and political backing required to combat crime, the D.C. Council is determined to kneecap MPD's capabilities, subsequently emboldening dangerous criminals. The council's anti-police law creates undue burdens on the MPD. A few of these policies include: Limiting physical contact with the suspect. They claim it bans choke holds, but choke holds have been banned for decades, since 1985. So this ban is really just a cheap attempt at a political talking point. It goes further, placing liability on officers just for touching near the neck area without any intent whatsoever. Additionally, this legislation sets MPD officers up for failure by prohibiting officers from viewing body-worn camera footage when writing initial reports. This reform requires the Mayor to publicly release the names of officers in all instances of serious use of force, allowing radical activists to target officers and their families. The D.C. Council bill strips the D.C. Police Union of collective bargaining rights. It repeals the D.C. code provision that requires the Metropolitan Police Department to commence disciplinary action against an officer within 90 business days. This means that officers could be placed under investigation for an indefinite period of time, which strips their right to timely due process of law. Notably, since this legislation has been in effect under emergency legislative powers since 2020, the MPD has lost almost 1,200 officers and currently operates at a 500-officer deficit. Officers are expressing their great concern with their feet and are leaving faster than they can be replaced. The D.C. police force has been depleted to an astonishing half-century low. Undoubtedly, the D.C. Council's misguided legislation has driven out men and women in blue who protect us, while disincentivizing individuals to join the force. Honestly, who can blame them? Who wants to put their life on the line in a city where local officials continue to put criminals first and police officers last? Back in 2020, Mayor Bowser allowed a painted message, ``Defund the Police,'' to remain on a street near the White House for more than 2 months. Clearly, D.C. officials have made their message abundantly clear, and they continue to fail the men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department. In response, we must be united in supporting MPD officers and restoring law and order in Washington by blocking the D.C. Council's legislation. We have both the authority and the responsibility to do so, just as we repealed the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime Revised Criminal Code Act just a few weeks ago. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive legislative authority over Washington's affairs. It is time to effectively exercise this power yet again to ensure our Nation's Capital City is safe for all Americans. After all, the heart of our Republic, Washington, D.C., should be the safest city in this great Nation. Public safety is not a partisan issue. It is a commonsense one. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my resolution, H.J. Res. 42, so we can take the necessary steps to turn our crime-ridden Capital City into a safe, free, and prosperous city.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and fellow Georgian, Congressman Buddy Carter, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a staunch supporter and original cosponsor of Mr. Carter's FairTax Act, a commonsense piece of legislation designed to create a simplified and fair code that works for everyone. Most Americans would agree that tax season is stressful and at times intimidating. This is largely due to the fact that our Tax Code has become overwhelmingly complicated and the IRS is generally unavailable on the phone. In fact, over the past year, my Gainesville district office has processed nearly 200 casework issues involving the IRS, and with an IRS backlog of more than 2 million returns, I know this issue is felt by taxpayers across the country. While great reforms were made in President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I believe the next necessary step is to completely overhaul our overly complex Tax Code with the FairTax Act. The FairTax Act represents a long-term solution by repealing all Federal, corporate, and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, and death taxes, replacing our misguided system with the revenue-neutral personal consumption tax. Under the FairTax Act, Americans would be able to keep their entire paycheck and only pay taxes on the goods and services that they actually purchase. With no national income tax, there would be no need to file a tax return. April 15--or in this year's case, April 18, today--would become just another beautiful spring day. The FairTax Act is also a critical step to truly stop the weaponization of the IRS. In 2013, I was a victim of the IRS' abuse through unjustified civil asset forfeiture against my small business to the tune of $940,000. I relentlessly fought back for months, eventually reclaiming my hard-earned money through the court system. Then I took my case to Congress leading to the creation and passage of what eventually was called the Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act, which President Trump signed into law to ensure no American faces this injustice ever again. Unfortunately, I know that I am not the only victim of the severe overreach of the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, to make matters worse, just last year, my Democratic colleagues provided the IRS with a whopping $80 billion with the primary purpose of expanding the already bloated agency. The IRS recently confirmed it is set to hire nearly 30,000 new employees over the next 2 years drastically increasing the agency's auditing capabilities in order to rake in billions of dollars to pay for President Biden's pricey Green New Deal agenda. House Republicans' first vote this Congress repealed this unnecessary funding authorization, and it is past time for Congress to fully recoup this money--sending a strong message that this institution values fiscal responsibility and stands against the weaponization of the IRS. Not only would Congressman Carter's FairTax Act eliminate the need for the IRS, but it would also lead to economic prosperity. Economists resoundingly agree that the FairTax Act would significantly boost our Nation's economy. Eliminating corporate taxes would incentivize corporations to headquarter in the United States, which would provide new jobs and economic development in our communities. The cost savings these companies experience will drive the competitive market, ultimately lowering prices of goods and services for Americans. In turn, Americans would have more freedom to reinvest in the economy since there would be no tax on pure investments. In closing, I am a proud supporter of Representative Carter's FairTax Act, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill to not only simplify but also improve our tax system.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congresswoman Miller from Illinois, for leading on this important issue, this important Special Order, and for being a leader in defending religious freedom. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor and celebration of Faith Month. During Faith Month, we celebrate the enduring power of the Bible as God's revelation to His creation, offering guidance and the promise of eternal life through the Gospel of His word. This sacred text has played a pivotal role in shaping the very fabric of our Nation, acting as a guard for liberty in the United States of America. Over 400 years ago, settlers fled religious persecution in search of the New World, and the Bible became the cornerstone of our Founding Fathers' vision for a free government. Their wise leadership wove the Word of God into the foundation and core principles of our Nation, ensuring unity and success for generations to come. Our Founders wisely and proudly proclaimed that our liberties are not bestowed by the government, but by our heavenly creator. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' This includes the most pivotal liberties, outlined in the First Amendment, which preserves our unalienable right to religious liberty. Undoubtedly, this remains one of the most important foundations of our Nation, but I see little by little, day by day, these religious liberties are in danger of being canceled or abandoned because of persecution in government at all levels. We must not allow that to continue, and so we must defend all our God-given liberties from government overreach and we, in Congress, must lead on this issue. Today and every day, may we individually and unapologetically rejoice in our faith. As we move forward, let us continue to use God's word as the guiding light. Our government founded on faith and His divine plan will bring peace, freedom, and liberty to all who call this great Nation home.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of my amendment to the Protecting Free Speech from Government Interference Act. As we all know, the First Amendment is the foundation of our Republic. It protects our right to speak, to worship, and to express ourselves without fear of government retribution. Unfortunately, we have seen an alarming trend of government officials attempting to censor and silence viewpoints with which they disagree, which are frequently conservative viewpoints. This censorship often takes the form of using private companies to do the government's bidding, otherwise known as government-by-proxy censorship. The government can pressure or coerce these companies to silence certain viewpoints, effectively bypassing the protections afforded by the First Amendment. This is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights and it must be stopped. That is why I am proud to offer my amendment, which will strengthen the Protecting Free Speech from Government Interference Act. My amendment requires the Attorney General to submit an annual report to Congress evaluating compliance with this Act by Federal agencies and employees in the executive branch, including any instances of censorship. My amendment will shine a light on the Orwellian practice of using taxpayer dollars to suppress speech through leveraging private companies and hold the government accountable for any attempts to circumvent Americans' First Amendment freedoms. I thank Chairman Comer for his leadership on this critical issue and for his support of my amendment. Together, we can make sure that the government is held accountable and that our fundamental rights are protected. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment and the Protecting Free Speech from Government Interference Act. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York's remarks in opposition to my amendment are puzzling. I think my commonsense amendment should pass with broad bipartisan support as it simply requires transparency and accountability via the mechanism of a report to Congress. That is not a novel idea. It is actually a very good one. It keeps the average American citizen informed. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. I thank my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) for his support for my amendment to the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act. It is clear that this should be a bipartisan issue, and we must come together to protect Americans' fundamental right of free speech. My Democrat colleague on the other side of the aisle's opposition to my amendment is disappointing but not surprising. The Democrats have consistently shown that they are willing to use any means necessary to censor speech with which they disagree, whether it is through government officials or private companies. My amendment simply requires transparency and accountability from the executive branch, and I fail to see how anyone can be opposed to that. Again, I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment to the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act. We must take a stand against government-by-proxy censorship and ensure that the First Amendment is upheld for all Americans. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Comer, for yielding. It is no secret that crime has beleaguered Washington, D.C., for years. Yet, in the midst of rising crime rates in D.C., our Nation's Capital is now on track to become even more dangerous. The D.C. Council is advancing a severely misguided bill, the Revised Criminal Code Act, to eliminate minimum sentences and reduce maximum penalties for numerous violent criminal offenses. This legislation isn't just reckless. It is radical. Washington's own Democratic Mayor Bowser vetoed the legislation telling the council: ``This bill does not make us safer.'' Well, for once, I agree with the Mayor because eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder, eliminating life sentences, and reducing maximum penalties for violent crimes including burglary, carjacking, and robberies will undoubtedly embolden criminals and threaten the safety of both residents and visitors here in Washington, D.C. But ultimately, the D.C. Council ignored Mayor Bowser's valid concerns and overrode her veto. Many have asked why, as a Congressman from northeast Georgia, I am leading the effort to block the D.C. Council's radical rewrite of Washington's criminal code. It is because I care, and I would expect and hope that everyone here in this Chamber would care, too. Congress has the responsibility and the authority to take this action. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District.'' But we don't just have a constitutional obligation to stop this soft- on-crime bill from becoming law, we also have a moral obligation to protect America's safety and security in our Nation's Capital City. Just 2 days ago in his State of the Union Address, President Biden said right here in this very Chamber: ``We have an obligation to make sure all our people are safe,'' and adding: ``Public safety depends on public trust.'' For once, I agree with the President because all Americans deserve to visit our Nation's Capital without facing fear or violence, and all Americans should be able to trust public officials to implement policies that protect their safety and well-being. Yet, under the D.C. Council's radical crime bill, residents, small businesses, constituents, and our own staff here on Capitol Hill will inevitably encounter additional danger and violence. As the President delivered his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, there was a shooting blocks away in the Navy Yard and a stabbing over in Georgetown. Earlier this week on Capitol Hill, a Capitol Hill reporter's wheels were stolen right off his car. The same crime happened to one of my Democrat colleagues, Congresswoman Barragan, last month. Just last week at the Potomac Avenue Metro station, a crazed criminal shot and killed a 64-year-old Metro mechanic, Robert Cunningham, who heroically attempted to stop the violent criminal from shooting a woman nearby. Clearly, crime after crime is on the rise here in D.C., yet the D.C. Council's bill will only make matters worse. Combating crime is not a conservative or a liberal objective. It is not Republican or Democrat. It is simply a commonsense one. In fact, it has been my honor to work with a local Democrat, Denise Krepp, who formerly served as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner here in D.C. For years Ms. Krepp pleaded with Democrats to be tough on crime for the sake of the residents she served, yet she was routinely ignored. In a letter sent to this very body in December--which I shall include in the Record--she urged Congress to introduce a resolution of disapproval to block the D.C. Council's Revised Criminal Code Act. It is an effort I am honored to lead and an effort that I am proud the House will pass today. Because we must send a clear message to the Senate, to the White House, and to the American people that the people's House rejects soft- on-crime policies that jeopardize Americans' safety and security, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yea'' on my commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 26. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the December 12, 2022, letter from Ms. Krepp. December 12, 2022. Re. B24-0416--Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022. Rep. Pelosi, Washington, DC. Rep. McCarthy, Washington, DC. Senator Schumer, Washington, DC. Senator McConnell, Washington, DC. Representative Pelosi, Representative McCarthy, Senator Schumer, and Senator McConnell: My name is K. Denise Rucker Krepp and I'm an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in Washington, D.C. I'm writing to you today to ask that you enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA). The bill hurts victims of violent crime. Currently, convicted rapists must serve their full prison sentence. The RCCA creates a new right to petition for early release from prison. The D.C. Councilmembers who drafted this provision call it proportionate, balancing the interests of victims and those who commit the crimes. Rape is an irreversible crime. Victims don't get to rewind the clock and as a locally elected D.C. official I respectfully ask that you disapprove the bill, stopping it from becoming law. Additionally, I respectfully ask that you conduct oversight over prosecutions of violent crimes occurring in Washington, D.C. At a March 2022 meeting, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia told me that he didn't know what crimes his office prosecutes each year and that it is unreasonable for me to expect him to know this information. I've been a locally unpaid, no staff elected official in Washington, D.C. for eight years. Over this period of time, I've tracked the murders, armed carjackings, assaults, robberies, stabbings, shootings, and rape that have occurred in my single member district. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has staff and resources, and it's reasonable for him to know what crimes his office prosecutes. Please ask him to do so and to share this information with you and DC residents. Thank you. K. Denise Rucker Krepp, ANC6B10 Commissioner.

Mr. CLYDE

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on January 13 of this year, the ATF finalized its unconstitutional rule pertaining to firearms with stabilizing braces. Under this new ATF rule, any pistol-braced firearm would be considered an illegal short-barreled rifle, subjecting these firearms to draconian regulations under the NFA, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and turning millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals literally overnight. Unelected antigun bureaucrats informed law-abiding gun owners possessing pistols with these braces attached that they will have only 120 days to register them once the rule is published in the Federal Register. This 120-day amnesty window started yesterday, January 31. As we have seen across the world time and time again, what comes before gun confiscation? Gun registration. That is right. That is exactly what ATF is now demanding. For stabilizer brace owners who do not wish to register their firearms, the ATF provides four alternatives. The first: Turn in the entire firearm with the attached stabilizing brace to the ATF. That means forfeiting your firearm. The second: Destroy the whole firearm. Again, another forfeiture of your firearm. The third: Convert the pistol brace into a long-barreled rifle that does not require registration but is also much more difficult to use with a brace. The fourth: Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter the stabilizing brace, from the firearm so that it cannot be reattached. If gun owners who possess braced firearms refuse to register, destroy, turn in, or alter their firearm after this 120-day window, they face National Firearms Act violations, felony violations, including hefty fines of up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison for having an unregistered short-barreled rifle. In other words, the ATF's rule turns law-abiding gun owners into criminals, into felons, for simply doing nothing. That is right. If they do nothing, then after 120 days, they are in felony violation of ATF's reinterpreted law, all for simply maintaining their Second Amendment freedoms. What exactly are these alleged hazardous stabilizing braces? A pistol brace, also known as a stabilizing brace, is simply an accessory that is attached to the rear of a large firearm in order to anchor the gun to the shooter's arm to better stabilize it, allowing them to be more accurately shot one-handed, just like what you see right here. This is a stabilizing brace. These braces were actually designed to help disabled veterans enjoy the sport of shooting. In fact, as a Federal firearms licensee, my company has sold many of these pistol brace firearms to assist disabled veterans so they can improve their shooting capabilities and their accuracy. Unfortunately, these beneficial braces have faced uninformed and unwarranted backlash from unelected bureaucrats for years. In 2012, the ATF provided a letter determining that pistol braces were legal to use and to shoulder. This decision was then reversed 3 years later by the ATF. In 2015, stabilizing braces became illegal to shoulder, turning braced firearms into unregistered short-barreled rifles. The braces remained legal if held at arm's length but illegal if brought back to the shoulder. How does that make any sense? This flip-flopped again in 2017 when stabilizing braces were once more determined to be legal to shoulder by the ATF, as long as the original design of the brace remained unmodified. Here we are in 2023 as braced pistols are vilified yet again, declared by the ATF to be unregistered short-barreled rifles requiring registration and their owners classified as felons if they simply do nothing. Clearly, as in most cases of unconstitutional gun control, unelected bureaucrats who have little to no knowledge of firearms or respect for Second Amendment rights are steamrolling ahead with unlawful restrictions, which will impact, estimates say, anywhere from 3 million to up to 40 million firearms across the country. Why? To advance the less dangerous dream of disarming our Nation and dismantling our Second Amendment rights. That is what gun control is all about. The ultimate goal is an unarmed and subjugated America. I can assure gun owners across this great Nation that I and Second Amendment-loving Republican colleagues will do everything in our power to never allow that to happen. We are fighting this, and we are not going to give up. Congress cannot allow the ATF to brazenly disregard both our Constitution and Congress' role, its sole role in legislation, its legislative authority. I don't know if ATF Director Dettelbach needs a copy of the Constitution to revisit the explicit language of the Second Amendment or the direct powers granted to the three branches of government, but the last time I checked, only Congress has the authority to make laws. Let me say that again. Congress makes laws, not unelected antigun bureaucrats at the ATF or any other part of the executive branch, for that matter. Yet, given the ATF's severely misguided decision to advance its unconstitutional pistol brace rule, I am actively leading the fight to stop this grave injustice. We have three key tools available to us in Congress to fight the ATF's tyranny. The first is H.R. 646, the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, or the SHORT Act, which I reintroduced yesterday with Senators Roger Marshall and John Kennedy. This legislation repeals elements of the National Firearms Act, thereby prohibiting the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces. The second element is a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which we will introduce in a matter of days to block the ATF's rule from infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights. Congressman Richard Hudson, our NRCC chair, has joined me in co-leading this in the House, while Senators John Kennedy and Roger Marshall will introduce the resolution in the Senate. The third way that we can fight this here in Congress is through the power of the purse. As we write the ATF's appropriations for fiscal year 2024, we can prevent taxpayer dollars from funding this backdoor gun control through what is called a limitation amendment. As a new member on the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, I look forward to assisting in this effort. With these three initiatives, we can work together to stop the ATF's unconstitutional overreach. It would be better if the ATF simply decided to rescind the pistol brace rule so we would not have to take these permanent measures, but we are fully prepared to do so if they will not rescind it. I am proud to have several of my colleagues here tonight to expose the ATF's unconstitutional rule, as well as to highlight how Congress can stop this latest form of gun control from infringing on law-abiding gun owners' Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. CLYDE. I thank my good friend from New Jersey, from one of those blue States where you don't necessarily think that there are passionate gun owners. I appreciate them.

Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who is also the co-chair of our Second Amendment Caucus here in Congress and my good friend.